Magus_Jerel
First Post
oh - another little problem...
Sr: See Text
If the conjured creature also has DR ... hmmm
Sr: See Text
If the conjured creature also has DR ... hmmm
Casting Through Anti-Magic?
- Thread starter ControlFreak
- Start date
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Re: Re: Line of Effect...
An excellent question that admittedly stretches my definition of AM fields and how they work.
Let me rephrase my ruling regarding lines of effect into something that is a little easier to grasp, breaking it down into three cases:
Case 1.) An AM field blocks all lines of effect of all objects/areas within the field (i.e., objects/areas within the field can have no lines of effect to anywhere else, inside or outside the field).
Case 2.) An AM field blocks all lines of effect from the outside of the field to objects/areas inside the field (i.e., objects/areas outside the field cannot get a line of effect on an object/areas inside the field).
Case 3.) I could stop at 1 and 2 and this one should be clear, but I will add it for emphasis... An AM field does not affect lines of effect from objects/areas outside the field to objects/areas outside the field. IOW, a valid line of effect between two objects/areas outside the field always exists provided that a valid line of effect would exist if the AM field did not exist.
Corollary 1.) An area effect centered outside the AM field treats the "edge" of the AM field as an impenetrable barrier, affecting creatures outside the AM field (if within range) but not those within it. An area effect centered inside the AM field is suppressed entirely, even if its area were large enough that ordinarily part of it (the "edges") could exist outside the AM field. *All* magical effects, including pre-existing ones (including *all* Spell-like and Supernatural abilities), are suppressed within an AM field (line of effect is not really at issue here, but I mention it for completeness) in this manner.
Note that this more concise ruling explains why I feel that spellcasters can try to cast (and consequently lose) spells within an AM field... they cast the spell but have no line of effect (including a line of 0 length to themselves for personal/touch spells). Lines of effect are not lines of length 0 within an AM field, they are negated entirely. Then again, perhaps this is a relic of my playing the Bard's Tale back in the mid 80's, where you could "try to cast a spell but it fizzles!"
Therefore, I would rule in your particular situation that as soon as you out yourself into the AM field, the Project Image spell ends, as your line of effect is reduced to zero (broken) as soon as you enter the AM field.
Similarly, if you cast this spell and three rounds later, a beholder hit you with an AM ray, the spell would end, as all lines of effect you may have had are lost as soon as you enter the AM ray.
A good analogy that may help in the visualization is to think of a "cone of darkness" - from the outside, you can "see around it" to the other side, even though everything in the cone itself is pitch black. So you can see from outside to outside (line of effect always exists between two points outside an AM area, provided one would exist if the AM area were non-existent). You cannot see stuff within the cone itself from the outside (no line of effect/targeting stuff inside an AM area even from the outside). Similarly, if you are caught in the cone itself, you can see nothing, not even your hand in front of your face (no lines of effect to anywhere while within an AM field).
Please poke holes in this so I can work to get my definition airtight.
--The Sigil
Saladrex said:
An excellent question that admittedly stretches my definition of AM fields and how they work.
Let me rephrase my ruling regarding lines of effect into something that is a little easier to grasp, breaking it down into three cases:
Case 1.) An AM field blocks all lines of effect of all objects/areas within the field (i.e., objects/areas within the field can have no lines of effect to anywhere else, inside or outside the field).
Case 2.) An AM field blocks all lines of effect from the outside of the field to objects/areas inside the field (i.e., objects/areas outside the field cannot get a line of effect on an object/areas inside the field).
Case 3.) I could stop at 1 and 2 and this one should be clear, but I will add it for emphasis... An AM field does not affect lines of effect from objects/areas outside the field to objects/areas outside the field. IOW, a valid line of effect between two objects/areas outside the field always exists provided that a valid line of effect would exist if the AM field did not exist.
Corollary 1.) An area effect centered outside the AM field treats the "edge" of the AM field as an impenetrable barrier, affecting creatures outside the AM field (if within range) but not those within it. An area effect centered inside the AM field is suppressed entirely, even if its area were large enough that ordinarily part of it (the "edges") could exist outside the AM field. *All* magical effects, including pre-existing ones (including *all* Spell-like and Supernatural abilities), are suppressed within an AM field (line of effect is not really at issue here, but I mention it for completeness) in this manner.
Note that this more concise ruling explains why I feel that spellcasters can try to cast (and consequently lose) spells within an AM field... they cast the spell but have no line of effect (including a line of 0 length to themselves for personal/touch spells). Lines of effect are not lines of length 0 within an AM field, they are negated entirely. Then again, perhaps this is a relic of my playing the Bard's Tale back in the mid 80's, where you could "try to cast a spell but it fizzles!"
Therefore, I would rule in your particular situation that as soon as you out yourself into the AM field, the Project Image spell ends, as your line of effect is reduced to zero (broken) as soon as you enter the AM field.
Similarly, if you cast this spell and three rounds later, a beholder hit you with an AM ray, the spell would end, as all lines of effect you may have had are lost as soon as you enter the AM ray.
A good analogy that may help in the visualization is to think of a "cone of darkness" - from the outside, you can "see around it" to the other side, even though everything in the cone itself is pitch black. So you can see from outside to outside (line of effect always exists between two points outside an AM area, provided one would exist if the AM area were non-existent). You cannot see stuff within the cone itself from the outside (no line of effect/targeting stuff inside an AM area even from the outside). Similarly, if you are caught in the cone itself, you can see nothing, not even your hand in front of your face (no lines of effect to anywhere while within an AM field).
Please poke holes in this so I can work to get my definition airtight.
--The Sigil
Magus_Jerel
First Post
Now... where is that example about Damage reduction?
Saladrex?
Magus_Jerel said:
Ok:
"An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities "
and quoting damage reduction:
"Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable. (...)"
Magus_Jerel
First Post
Still doesn't answer the question concerning the last sentence of paragraph six.
These creatures SLA's or Su abilities may be temporarily nullified by the field.
note it does not say HAS to be nullified.
I'll admit - a better wording is the following:
These creatures SLA's or Su abilites, however, are still subject to nullification by the AMF.
Problem is - this is a rules forum, and we are dealing only with the exact text. With the word splice that you are discussing - I am confronted with deciding wether or not a given creature's DR is a function of "instant healing" and thus prevented, or "ability to ignore such a slight blow" - so that no real "damage" was done in the first place.
I don't like the ambiguity this allows in the least. I am inclined to agree with you - for the sake of play balance. The problem is - the interpretation that DR is NOT negated is still potentially valid - wether correct for the sake of balance or not.
I would much rather remove that possibility; I have seen way too much rules lawyering in my time as a GM.
These creatures SLA's or Su abilities may be temporarily nullified by the field.
note it does not say HAS to be nullified.
I'll admit - a better wording is the following:
These creatures SLA's or Su abilites, however, are still subject to nullification by the AMF.
Problem is - this is a rules forum, and we are dealing only with the exact text. With the word splice that you are discussing - I am confronted with deciding wether or not a given creature's DR is a function of "instant healing" and thus prevented, or "ability to ignore such a slight blow" - so that no real "damage" was done in the first place.
I don't like the ambiguity this allows in the least. I am inclined to agree with you - for the sake of play balance. The problem is - the interpretation that DR is NOT negated is still potentially valid - wether correct for the sake of balance or not.
I would much rather remove that possibility; I have seen way too much rules lawyering in my time as a GM.
No one would be happier than me if DR works inside AMF, because I play a Dragon in a campaign, and he uses AMF a lot!
The rules really have a hole in there because of that "may", but I think in my case the most balanced choice is to negate DR inside AMF.
Well, if anyone hears an official position on that please tell me
The rules really have a hole in there because of that "may", but I think in my case the most balanced choice is to negate DR inside AMF.
Well, if anyone hears an official position on that please tell me
Saladrex said:No one would be happier than me if DR works inside AMF, because I play a Dragon in a campaign, and he uses AMF a lot!
The rules really have a hole in there because of that "may", but I think in my case the most balanced choice is to negate DR inside AMF.
Well, if anyone hears an official position on that please tell me
Magus, as always, has misunderstood the text in the spell description. The word "may" can be interpreted to mean either 1) the ability to exercise discretion in making a choice; or 2) giving permission for, or allowing, something to occur. The obvious meaning that applies here is sense (2) -- sense (1) is essentially an appeal to DM fiat, which is meaningless in a passage that is setting down rules for adjudicating a spell effect.
In this situation, "may" is a synonym for "can". For instance, in that last paragraph, instead of saying "the word 'may' can be interpreted...", I could have said "the word 'may may be interpreted...". In both cases, the meaning would be the same. The same applies for the text in the description of AMF. Thus an AMF can suppress spell-like and supernatural abilities, and will do so unless the DM decides that some unique circumstance causes otherwise.
Talking too long with Magus has been known to cause loss of San points, so beware.
Magus_Jerel
First Post
Saladrex - I am not arguing the fact that it was an intentional hole, just that it does indeed exist.
-----------------
as far as a certain flamer - he's done this before in the timestop thread - and a few others. Reasoned thought can be complicated - too complicated sometimes for individuals who have to make certain remarks about "beating you know what"...
Childish one - either go away or shut thy mouth and listen.
------------------
There is a philisophical way of reading "rules" called textualism. Those of you who are in the legal profession and read these boards - understand exactly what I mean. In layman's terms it eliminates the possibility of one word having more than one meaning. In other words - no synonyms. The fact that the flamer admits that there ARE two possible interpretations is grounds sufficent for textualist theory to work.
Under the core rules - that one little word may in that phrase is an excuse for the GM to allow Su abilites to work inside an AMF. IMHO - it is unbalancing to do so, and goes against the nature of "supressing" magical effects within an AMF. The fact that the excuse is there - is causus belli. Characters don't usually get damage reduction as a supernatural ability; for that matter they don't get many supernatural abilities in the first place.
I can name several spells that are just as abuseable because of a phrase or two; if not more so than - AMF. Others, merely require a slight inference to get how they can be abused:
magic missile
(no attack roll, no save, at range - you take damage; it shouldn't matter if there is but one point taken this way - the spell is cheezy munchkin right there)
silence; interrupt spellcasting - no save possible
feeblemind (the most grossly unbalaincing spell in the 3e core)
harm... could set a deity's hp to 1d4 - if He failed his save... And unless you are a greater deity - you DO still make them.
time stop: because people think you can use this spell to do that which you cannot.
meteor swarm: there be a way to deny someone a save here... every single time.
limited wish
wish
miracle
The last three - are very "interpretive" spells... but this is just a fast list of "problem spells" under textual theory. Not to mention the fact that you have people who just don't "get" one rule or another... or insist any of the following is true:
"My interpretation is the only interpretation - so **** you...".
"The GM is always wise, right, and correct - no matter what"
"The story always takes precedence over the rules"
I have seen too many GM's try to make a decision without thinking it thru completely; and it wind up blowing up in their face. I did this in a theoretical concept mode in the "I heard there was some fix to time stop" thread.
To keep it short and sweet - certain persons felt that the "dealing gobs and gobs of damage" possible under a time stop spell was "unbalancing" and were looking to "fix" the situation. Bluntly - they couldn't do this; because that is exactly what time stop was intended to do. In the same respect; people are doing the exact same thing to the AMF spell.
People are crying "broken" or "unbalancing" at the very concept, thought, or idea that a caster could stand within and send out spells from inside an AMF. The reason damage reduction IS a su ability - unlike all other defences - is because of AMF - yes. So yes, it is the proper balancing decision to say that DR doesn't work in an AMF. Alas, it is not the only POSSIBLE interpretation of the words chosen to write the spell description.
That is when GM's are called upon to change the wording of the spell or the abilites to follow the intent of the rule - and not the letter. Some choose the former. I took the latter route - as it solved a couple of other problems as well.
-----------------
as far as a certain flamer - he's done this before in the timestop thread - and a few others. Reasoned thought can be complicated - too complicated sometimes for individuals who have to make certain remarks about "beating you know what"...
Childish one - either go away or shut thy mouth and listen.
------------------
There is a philisophical way of reading "rules" called textualism. Those of you who are in the legal profession and read these boards - understand exactly what I mean. In layman's terms it eliminates the possibility of one word having more than one meaning. In other words - no synonyms. The fact that the flamer admits that there ARE two possible interpretations is grounds sufficent for textualist theory to work.
Under the core rules - that one little word may in that phrase is an excuse for the GM to allow Su abilites to work inside an AMF. IMHO - it is unbalancing to do so, and goes against the nature of "supressing" magical effects within an AMF. The fact that the excuse is there - is causus belli. Characters don't usually get damage reduction as a supernatural ability; for that matter they don't get many supernatural abilities in the first place.
I can name several spells that are just as abuseable because of a phrase or two; if not more so than - AMF. Others, merely require a slight inference to get how they can be abused:
magic missile
(no attack roll, no save, at range - you take damage; it shouldn't matter if there is but one point taken this way - the spell is cheezy munchkin right there)
silence; interrupt spellcasting - no save possible
feeblemind (the most grossly unbalaincing spell in the 3e core)
harm... could set a deity's hp to 1d4 - if He failed his save... And unless you are a greater deity - you DO still make them.
time stop: because people think you can use this spell to do that which you cannot.
meteor swarm: there be a way to deny someone a save here... every single time.
limited wish
wish
miracle
The last three - are very "interpretive" spells... but this is just a fast list of "problem spells" under textual theory. Not to mention the fact that you have people who just don't "get" one rule or another... or insist any of the following is true:
"My interpretation is the only interpretation - so **** you...".
"The GM is always wise, right, and correct - no matter what"
"The story always takes precedence over the rules"
I have seen too many GM's try to make a decision without thinking it thru completely; and it wind up blowing up in their face. I did this in a theoretical concept mode in the "I heard there was some fix to time stop" thread.
To keep it short and sweet - certain persons felt that the "dealing gobs and gobs of damage" possible under a time stop spell was "unbalancing" and were looking to "fix" the situation. Bluntly - they couldn't do this; because that is exactly what time stop was intended to do. In the same respect; people are doing the exact same thing to the AMF spell.
People are crying "broken" or "unbalancing" at the very concept, thought, or idea that a caster could stand within and send out spells from inside an AMF. The reason damage reduction IS a su ability - unlike all other defences - is because of AMF - yes. So yes, it is the proper balancing decision to say that DR doesn't work in an AMF. Alas, it is not the only POSSIBLE interpretation of the words chosen to write the spell description.
That is when GM's are called upon to change the wording of the spell or the abilites to follow the intent of the rule - and not the letter. Some choose the former. I took the latter route - as it solved a couple of other problems as well.
Casting AM Field on a Familiar? Not bloody likely.
I know it's painful to all you powergamers out there, but the TEXT of the rules says that you can't cast an AM Field on your familiar . . . because an AM Field does not have a range of "Personal".
Feel free to talk your DM into Rule 0'ing this one away for you, but I know I wouldn't
(Yep. Time to hire a Pixie to carry around in your backpack.)
I know it's painful to all you powergamers out there, but the TEXT of the rules says that you can't cast an AM Field on your familiar . . . because an AM Field does not have a range of "Personal".
Feel free to talk your DM into Rule 0'ing this one away for you, but I know I wouldn't
(Yep. Time to hire a Pixie to carry around in your backpack.)
